CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, NEW DELHI Vs. D. SAINSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.10.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 3378 of 1987, as the learned single Judge has set aside the order dated 30.3.1985 passed by the first appellant-first respondent in the W.P. confirming the order dated 25.3.1982 passed by the second appellant-second respondent in the W.P. who confirmed the order dated 21.3.1981 passed by the third appellant-third respondent in the W.P.

(2.) The matter arises out of the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the writ petitioner (respondent in the appeal) for the alleged unauthorised absence for a period of 45 days. The learned Single Judge has recorded the finding that the disciplinary proceedings has been conducted in accordance with law and fair and proper opportunity has been afforded to the respondent- writ petitioner, and the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authorities is valid. Accordingly, the learned single Judge has held that the same does not fall for interference. However, on the question of penalty, the learned single Judge has taken the view that having regard to the nature of the misconduct, the penalty imposed is disproportionate and harsh and that this question has not been considered by the appellate authorities. The learned single Judge has also taken into consideration that in an earlier case of one Dayalan, where the unauthorised absence was for a period of 31/2 months, the penalty of censure had been imposed. Accordingly, the learned single Judge has quashed all the orders in so far as they relate to imposition of penalty of removal from service of the petitioner and has directed the disciplinary authority to impose the penalty of censure. The learned single Judge has also further directed the authority to reinstate the respondent-writ petitioner in service and accord all consequential benefits that flow from the quashing of the impugned orders relating to imposition of penalty, except back wages, as those back wages have been given up by the respondent-writ petitioner.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that when once the High Court finds that the misconduct is established and the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority in that regard does not suffer from any infirmity and the same has been arrived at after affording fair and proper opportunity, it has no jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment, much less to prescribe the punishment.